It also ignores the whole "block messages from people I'm not friends with" setting. You can only block people individually after they message you. So now that farked up stalker guy can just make a new profile every week for the missive he sends you. Go Facebook!

born_yesterday:myrrh: Gaboo: For $7, users can promote a post to their friends, just as advertisers do.

LOL, Seriously? People are that hung up on themselves?

No, but Zuck is in fact that hung up on money. And considering how badly the IPO went, I can't say I blame him.

He seems to have run out of innovations that benefit the average user, and has had nothing but a string of "features" that benefit advertisers and pay-as-you attention whores.

I'm expecting even the most basic functions to require payment to operate correctly.

Soon, for $5 you will be able to geo-register your location, and every 18 to 21 year old who posts pictures of her boobs in a ten mile radius automatically shows up on your wall, regardless of their privacy settings. It should be huge in the stalker/pedophile market, who spend a lot of money on the internet.

Mr Guy:Soon, for $5 you will be able to geo-register your location, and every 18 to 21 year old who posts pictures of her boobs in a ten mile radius automatically shows up on your wall, regardless of their privacy settings.

For $2.74, I'll send you instructions on how to configure your Facebook account so you're never bothered by any of the annoying things that can happen. My instructions will also show you how to secure all of the information you don't want random people getting access to.

Mr Guy:born_yesterday: myrrh: Gaboo: For $7, users can promote a post to their friends, just as advertisers do.

LOL, Seriously? People are that hung up on themselves?

No, but Zuck is in fact that hung up on money. And considering how badly the IPO went, I can't say I blame him.

He seems to have run out of innovations that benefit the average user, and has had nothing but a string of "features" that benefit advertisers and pay-as-you attention whores.

I'm expecting even the most basic functions to require payment to operate correctly.

Soon, for $5 you will be able to geo-register your location, and every 18 to 21 year old who posts pictures of her boobs in a ten mile radius automatically shows up on your wall, regardless of their privacy settings. It should be huge in the stalker/pedophile market, who spend a lot of money on the internet.

dofus:For $2.74, I'll send you instructions on how to configure your Facebook account so you're never bothered by any of the annoying things that can happen. My instructions will also show you how to secure all of the information you don't want random people getting access to.

Mr Guy:born_yesterday: myrrh: Gaboo: For $7, users can promote a post to their friends, just as advertisers do.

LOL, Seriously? People are that hung up on themselves?

No, but Zuck is in fact that hung up on money. And considering how badly the IPO went, I can't say I blame him.

He seems to have run out of innovations that benefit the average user, and has had nothing but a string of "features" that benefit advertisers and pay-as-you attention whores.

I'm expecting even the most basic functions to require payment to operate correctly.

Soon, for $5 you will be able to geo-register your location, and every 18 to 21 year old who posts pictures of her boobs in a ten mile radius automatically shows up on your wall, regardless of their privacy settings. It should be huge in the stalker/pedophile market, who spend a lot of money on the internet.

Facebook is proof that people will sit and piss around with anything for hours on end, no matte how mundane, inconvenient, useless and idiotic it seems, and pay for it, if it's "z0mg teh comPUTERS R kewil!1!1"

I only discovered the "other" FB message folder a couple of weeks ago.

I sometimes comment on a few news websites other than Fark, on a couple I logged in with my FB login.

I got so much hate mail and bile directed at me in response to things I posted, all going into "Other". Of course, I only found these messages months later.

I wasn't trolling, but I was posting things that weren't exactly super-popular (or had lots of enthusiastic opposition). Saying things like I believed that Bradley Manning is traitorous scum who should face a firing squad or saying that Mitt Romney was a waffling sockpuppet of billionaire backers, you know, the sort of things that start/started routine flame wars on Fark, instead people were messaging me directly to tell me that I'm warmongering scum, a brainwashed libby lib, or just a brief little "fark you".

I decided at that point to stop using my FB login for news sites, the relative anonymity of Fark helps shield from the total morons who I am afraid might just get a little too personal.

ha-ha-guy:It also ignores the whole "block messages from people I'm not friends with" setting. You can only block people individually after they message you. So now that farked up stalker guy can just make a new profile every week for the missive he sends you. Go Facebook!

Oh christ,seriously? Welp goodbye facebook cause I can't handle my father being creepy on facebook via a proxy account though I've already blocked him and have my privacy setting set high.

Silverstaff:I only discovered the "other" FB message folder a couple of weeks ago.

I sometimes comment on a few news websites other than Fark, on a couple I logged in with my FB login.

I got so much hate mail and bile directed at me in response to things I posted, all going into "Other". Of course, I only found these messages months later.

I wasn't trolling, but I was posting things that weren't exactly super-popular (or had lots of enthusiastic opposition). Saying things like I believed that Bradley Manning is traitorous scum who should face a firing squad or saying that Mitt Romney was a waffling sockpuppet of billionaire backers, you know, the sort of things that start/started routine flame wars on Fark, instead people were messaging me directly to tell me that I'm warmongering scum, a brainwashed libby lib, or just a brief little "fark you".

I decided at that point to stop using my FB login for news sites, the relative anonymity of Fark helps shield from the total morons who I am afraid might just get a little too personal.

ha-ha-guy:It also ignores the whole "block messages from people I'm not friends with" setting. You can only block people individually after they message you. So now that farked up stalker guy can just make a new profile every week for the missive he sends you. Go Facebook!

Yes, and everyone is now visible via facebook search.

I deactivated my account today. I was one of the "single digit percentage" of users who was hidden from everybody but friends of friends and I'm too paranoid to be on there if that's not the case.

Launched in 2011, the "other" folder is where Facebook routes messages it deems less relevant. Not quite spam, these include messages from people you most likely don't know, based on Facebook's reading of your social connections. Many users ignore this folder.

Normally I wouldn't side with Facebook (which is, to my mind, the Pet Rock of the last decade- novel and also utterly useless), but this sounds a lot to me like it's a spam-prevention measure. And like Subby hasn't the faintest freaking idea what he's talking about.

mesmer242:ha-ha-guy: It also ignores the whole "block messages from people I'm not friends with" setting. You can only block people individually after they message you. So now that farked up stalker guy can just make a new profile every week for the missive he sends you. Go Facebook!

Yes, and everyone is now visible via facebook search.

I deactivated my account today. I was one of the "single digit percentage" of users who was hidden from everybody but friends of friends and I'm too paranoid to be on there if that's not the case.

I did not know this. Now, I'm not laughing.

/If employers can check FB before hiring, I can't afford for a friend to "tag" me in a compromising photo.

born_yesterday:mesmer242: ha-ha-guy: It also ignores the whole "block messages from people I'm not friends with" setting. You can only block people individually after they message you. So now that farked up stalker guy can just make a new profile every week for the missive he sends you. Go Facebook!

Yes, and everyone is now visible via facebook search.

I deactivated my account today. I was one of the "single digit percentage" of users who was hidden from everybody but friends of friends and I'm too paranoid to be on there if that's not the case.

I did not know this. Now, I'm not laughing.

/If employers can check FB before hiring, I can't afford for a friend to "tag" me in a compromising photo.

I believe they will only see your name and profile picture(s) as you can still make most of your content private. Hopefully. There aren't that many details on the changes. But now you can't tell your employer "Facebook? Oh, I don't have an account." in an effort to avoid friending your manager. Fun!

born_yesterday:mesmer242: ha-ha-guy: It also ignores the whole "block messages from people I'm not friends with" setting. You can only block people individually after they message you. So now that farked up stalker guy can just make a new profile every week for the missive he sends you. Go Facebook!

Yes, and everyone is now visible via facebook search.

I deactivated my account today. I was one of the "single digit percentage" of users who was hidden from everybody but friends of friends and I'm too paranoid to be on there if that's not the case.

I did not know this. Now, I'm not laughing.

/If employers can check FB before hiring, I can't afford for a friend to "tag" me in a compromising photo.

That's why I changed my display name to a fakish name and set myself up a "clean" facebook account with my real name

A Terrible Human:ha-ha-guy: It also ignores the whole "block messages from people I'm not friends with" setting. You can only block people individually after they message you. So now that farked up stalker guy can just make a new profile every week for the missive he sends you. Go Facebook!

Oh christ,seriously? Welp goodbye facebook cause I can't handle my father being creepy on facebook via a proxy account though I've already blocked him and have my privacy setting set high.

Pretty much my situation. I've blocked my entire family because they're all fundie cult members and I want no contact with them. If this allows them to pay to message me, it's goodbye Facebook. Seriously, there's a very good reason some of us block people.

pssh i just use an alias on facebook and no one knows who i am unless i tell them.

what ever happened to the moniker "don't give our your personal information including your full name on the internet"? it's what i grew up understanding and following. facebook made it safe and "OK" somehow?

my alt's alt's alt:what ever happened to the moniker "don't give our your personal information including your full name on the internet"? it's what i grew up understanding and following. facebook made it safe and "OK" somehow?

It's Facebook's opinion that the internet would be easier to advertise to on the cheap safer if everyone gushed their personal information like a busted water main.

Tired of looking at all your hot slutty friends posting their sexyface profile pics all over Facebook while you have to post kittens? Your worries are over! Now you don't have to be ashamed to be the ugly one! For the low price of $5 per month, the new Facebook system will connect you only with your homely friends. Share posts and photos of yourselves with confidence again, with the new ButterFacebook system.

Silverstaff:I only discovered the "other" FB message folder a couple of weeks ago.

I sometimes comment on a few news websites other than Fark, on a couple I logged in with my FB login.

I got so much hate mail and bile directed at me in response to things I posted, all going into "Other". Of course, I only found these messages months later.

I wasn't trolling, but I was posting things that weren't exactly super-popular (or had lots of enthusiastic opposition). Saying things like I believed that Bradley Manning is traitorous scum who should face a firing squad or saying that Mitt Romney was a waffling sockpuppet of billionaire backers, you know, the sort of things that start/started routine flame wars on Fark, instead people were messaging me directly to tell me that I'm warmongering scum, a brainwashed libby lib, or just a brief little "fark you".

I decided at that point to stop using my FB login for news sites, the relative anonymity of Fark helps shield from the total morons who I am afraid might just get a little too personal.

Gaboo:In October, Facebook unveiled another feature that lets users pay if they want more people to read their updates. For $7, users can promote a post to their friends, just as advertisers do.

LOL, Seriously? People are that hung up on themselves?

The amount of Romney shiat I got on my page from the rich motherfarkers on my friends list was amazing. One guy was proud to spend over a grand enlightening people.He ain't on my friend list no more, so I guess it'll just be paid messages now. Sigh.

deanis:I use twitter and google+ but I really don't like google+. Shiat seems like it's trying to hard.

I refuse to try Google+ because Google is too pushy about it. They want my real name for Youtube, and now they require G+ to write reviews for anything, so I only go to Yelp for place reviews and Amazon for app reviews.

The thing Zuckerberg said he loathed most about business, is the thing that is happening to his 'baby' right before his very eyes. He has fooled himself that Wall Street isn't running (and ruining) Facebook now. He really is a naive kid in over his head, but has either convinced himself or is fooled by his Yes Men (aka Money Men) that he's in control of FB. Either he's a fool or a liar because he has said before that FB is "not meant to be a business" but a revolution in connecting the world of people to each other.

Right, and interstitial ads spammed in our Friend's names and selling our relationships just screams interpersonal connection without the tarnishing of commercializing and monetizing our relationships. I now get 2 emails a day begging "you have more friends on FB than you know!" that I have to cancel. Basically begging me to make more connections so they can make more ad-value out of my "presence" there. If I had wanted to be "FB friends" with all of those hundreds of people I may or may not know, I'd have already added them. The problem is I have a low tolerance for instafoodgram-and-gawww-look-how-uniquely-perfect-my-baby-princess-is- she-will-cure-cancer pics.

I'm only still on there for a few science/nerd pages, and my gf begged me to stay on there, but the plan is to bail completely and delete my account once those video commercial pop-outs hit the News Feed and expand over the whole page "up to three times a day for up to 15 seconds." FB is already on thin ice after disrupting the delivery of Page postings to get them to pay to reach our news feed. Those posts seemed to be replaced by "[Friend] likes TARGET/WALMART/STARBUCKS/etc"

FB isn't worth this constant annoyance, anymore, and Google+ isn't all that compelling an alternative since nobody I know uses it. I'd move over there though if the FB science/nerd pages I like were to become active there too.

But the end of usefulness would likely follow to Google+ eventually too. Social Networking as "a revolution in human connection" fails because the landscape is inevitably dominated by massive attention whoring/self-promotion (Twitter) and advertising-through-friends in their name (FB), which disrupts the sense of relationship as it exists online.

Cinletharwi:...Social Networking as "a revolution in human connection" fails because the landscape is inevitably dominated by massive attention whoring/self-promotion (Twitter) and advertising-through-friends in their name (FB)...

But massive attention whoring and self-promotion, along with advertising-through-friends in their name is precisely what "human connection" is considered to be in modern American society. This was true before Facebook, but Facebook certainly made it a lot worse and fully brought this distorted view into the mainstream.

Cinletharwi:The thing Zuckerberg said he loathed most about business, is the thing that is happening to his 'baby' right before his very eyes.

By any accounts I've heard, Zuckerberg is quite complicit in what Facebook is, was, and is heading towards. This is his baby. I find the notion of him being some besieged Einstein mourning that his work was used to build something terrible to be pretty hilarious in it's naivete.

Cinletharwi:Social Networking as "a revolution in human connection" fails because the landscape is inevitably dominated by massive attention whoring/self-promotion (Twitter) and advertising-through-friends in their name (FB), which disrupts the sense of relationship as it exists online.

Facebook succeeded as it did precisely because it knew how to cater to people's egos- that a sense of importance (however imagined) is something people will gleefully do damn near anything to get. People want "massive attention whoring and self-promotion". After all, if you actually wanted social interaction, you could go out and socialize with friends.

"Social Networking" isn't a phenomenon- in human interaction or otherwise. It's a buzzword. Another advertising commodity. Nothing more. And Facebook works more or less exactly as intended.

What strikes me as odd as if FB wants a business model, just get into online music sales. Make it so you don't need iTunes or some other software to download music. Let my great aunt just buy it in browser via the one website she knows how to use.

Normally I'd agree with the sentiment, but that stance seems a bit unreasonable. That would mean you're not allowed to ever go out to a club, never go to a party, never have your picture taken in pulbic or in private, because "someone" might take your picture bent over, looking stupid, maybe have a boob hanging out without realizing. There's just too much opportunity for something to happen that might be compromising to someone.

If your position is that you should never have your picture taken, then just say that, instead of assuming that no potentially compromising position could ever innocently happen. But then you'd agree with born_yesterday.

I'm sorry folks but I find it absolutely awesome how much ire people seem to be able to generate over something that is free to use. It's like you borrow a car from your friend regularly, and he lets you use it for free but one time you went to borrow it and it was pink so now you call him an asshole but borrow the car anyhow.

If you don't like it, don't f*cking use it. Idiots. You have no investment here.

For the record, I genuinely do not care how Facebook operates and I have only ever given the slightest of pause to their privacy policy. If I don't want an advertising or "Facebook partner" to know something, I simply don't post it. If I do post it, I make sure it's something I wouldn't mind a total stranger knowing.

Normally I'd agree with the sentiment, but that stance seems a bit unreasonable. That would mean you're not allowed to ever go out to a club, never go to a party, never have your picture taken in pulbic or in private, because "someone" might take your picture bent over, looking stupid, maybe have a boob hanging out without realizing. There's just too much opportunity for something to happen that might be compromising to someone.

If your position is that you should never have your picture taken, then just say that, instead of assuming that no potentially compromising position could ever innocently happen. But then you'd agree with born_yesterday.

Thanks. And one should also consider that you can be tagged in pictures where you're not doing something stupid, but a friend is. Maybe the employer doesn't like drinkers, and a shot of you at a party with a beer turns them off. Maybe seeing you with a cigarette, or with a smoker, is enough to put your resume in the circular file. Maybe they don't like that you were a metalhead in high school. Nowadays, nothing that can be perceived as unprofessional is safe, whether it occurred yesterday or 20 years ago.

In any case, as these companies (Facebook, Instagram) continue to make decisions at the expense of the user, they will eventually be replaced by companies whose edge is that they don't share information, or claim ownership of material.

/I saw the consent form; the sheep was clearly there of its own volition.

Helena Handbasket:Pretty much my situation. I've blocked my entire family because they're all fundie cult members and I want no contact with them. If this allows them to pay to message me, it's goodbye Facebook. Seriously, there's a very good reason some of us block people.

The first time I talked to him since I was 14 he threatened me with libel cause I told the truth about him in a facebook post. I told him he could go die and when he does die I'll throw the biggest goddamn party I can and spit in his face at the funeral./He was so terribly abusive in every way imaginable that my mom has diagnosed ptsd,my sister has the same and I probably do too.//My mom's psych doctor offered us free counseling.

Walker:Spammer's delight. Prepare for non-stop spam on Facebook. Message popping up from "Vi@gra".

/pun unintended

I rather doubt it. Spam works by the fact that they can send millions of emails that cost pretty much nothing beyond the cost of bandwidth and the computer used to send it. In other words it costs them close to nothing per email. Even if it gets past the spam filters, the vast majority are ignored. A cost of a buck per shot would be pretty damn substantial. The only way it would be worth it to a spammer would be if the profits from any sales exceeds countless dollar charges which is rather unlikely if they are just sending it to random people. The cost would only make sense if they know enough about you to make of a more educated guess of what you would want. That is very unlike the vi@gra-type spammers.

The real danger is if Facebook combines such a charge with high-quality data mining.

Of course Facebook know that if people start getting annoyed at Facebook spam, they are likely to leave.

myrrh:Gaboo: For $7, users can promote a post to their friends, just as advertisers do.

LOL, Seriously? People are that hung up on themselves?

No, but Zuck is in fact that hung up on money. And considering how badly the IPO went, I can't say I blame him.

The IPO was a brilliant success. It made Mark and a few others overnight Billionaires. I mean, I'm sure he would feel bad to see his baby go the way of myspace, but he doesn't really have to worry about the rent check anymore.

Helena Handbasket:A Terrible Human: ha-ha-guy: It also ignores the whole "block messages from people I'm not friends with" setting. You can only block people individually after they message you. So now that farked up stalker guy can just make a new profile every week for the missive he sends you. Go Facebook!

Oh christ,seriously? Welp goodbye facebook cause I can't handle my father being creepy on facebook via a proxy account though I've already blocked him and have my privacy setting set high.

Pretty much my situation. I've blocked my entire family because they're all fundie cult members and I want no contact with them. If this allows them to pay to message me, it's goodbye Facebook. Seriously, there's a very good reason some of us block people.

Could it be that they're actually nice, normal people who happen to like God, and you have some kind of hangup because penis or the FarkLib Messiah Farthussein Anithcrhist?

History repeating. Everyone liked MySpace until they started letting everyone put seizure-inducing graphics and fonts on their pages, as well as announcing their terrible taste in music by having Nickelback play on loop at maximum volume.

ha-ha-guy:What strikes me as odd as if FB wants a business model, just get into online music sales. Make it so you don't need iTunes or some other software to download music. Let my great aunt just buy it in browser via the one website she knows how to use.

I've been Facebook-free since April. Not just deactivated, but I actually went through the, "are you really really really really REALLY sure you want us to actually delete your profile? Like seriously delete it??" process. Waited the 14 days to make sure it was really gone. They sure do make you jump through a lot of hoops to actually delete your profile, but it's worth it.

midigod:Normally I'd agree with the sentiment, but that stance seems a bit unreasonable. That would mean you're not allowed to ever go out to a club, never go to a party, never have your picture taken in pulbic or in private, because "someone" might take your picture bent over, looking stupid, maybe have a boob hanging out without realizing. There's just too much opportunity for something to happen that might be compromising to someone.

If your position is that you should never have your picture taken, then just say that, instead of assuming that no potentially compromising position could ever innocently happen. But then you'd agree with born_yesterday.

I think your position goes too far to the extreme. It's entirely possible to live your private life in a way you enjoy without being so irresponsible as to make yourself unemployable by *reasonable* employers.

Plenty of people have jobs that require them to curtail behavior they would otherwise wish to engage in, e.g., drug use for those with security clearances.

Responsible adults are capable of deciding how much of a balance they wish to strike between being crazy at the club and having a grown-up job. And most employers realize that they don't own you 24/7. If you wish to work for one who's going to constantly troll Facebook for things to discipline you over, that's your prerogative, but I think that situation is more rare than you think.

Stinkyy:Could it be that they're actually nice, normal people who happen to like God, and you have some kind of hangup because penis or the FarkLib Messiah Farthussein Anithcrhist?

*sigh*You realize that to troll on something personal like that for kicks, you have to be a complete piece of shiat? Seriously -- it's not just some role you're temporarily playing, that ends when you close the laptop because mom is calling you to dinner -- you've reached the point where you really are* an honest-to-god piece of shiat of a human being, if making an unprovoked out-of-the-blue attack on a person over their troubled family history like that seems like an ok thing to do -- even if you don't actually mean it and are just looking for a reaction. If you don't already recognize that about yourself, you should, and if you do, I can't imagine it's really all that satisfying a piece of self-awareness.

And before you get off to imagining me pounding the keyboard in rage on some Farker's behalf, know that I'm just calmly typing this out, puzzled and sad that people can reach a state of loser-dom that you just demonstrated. I know I may be foolish to hope this will serve at all as some sort of wake up call, but oh well, you never know.

(*lately, at least -- you probably weren't always one, and you always have the option of being something better)

/right, "welcometofark.jpg"//and preachy post is preachy, I know. But that can be merited, occasionally.